As National Debate Focuses On Risks of Unregulated Chemicals and Role of States In Regulation, Dupont In Control of Chemical Safety Under Christie DEP

Dupont Official Wrote DEP Science Advisory Report on Chemical Safety Screening

Dupont Establishes A Strategic Beachhead Inside DEP Science Advisory Board

This Is Worse Than The Exxon Settlement

Two weeks ago, the NY Times wrote a killer story exposing scientific misconduct and conflicts of interest, whereby a climate denying scientist failed to disclose the fact that he was paid by corporate interests.

I tried to use that story to explain how very similar corporate scientific abuses were happening right now, right here in NJ. (see this post). That was ignored.

Since then, the Christie Administration’s Exxon Bayway refinery settlement has exploded into controversy, another example of corporate influence on Christie environmental policy. But again, the press coverage is focused on the scandal and is ignoring the policy.

Today, the New York Times has another important national story on the debate in Congress on chemical safety.

NJ has been a leader on chemical safety, both in Congress and in State DEP regulatory programs.

Politically, the debate in Congress the Times writes about illustrates the loss of the leadership of NJ’s Senator Frank Lautenberg, whose death has created a void – not filled by corporate friendly Cory Booker –  that has allowed the chemical industry to use a quisling Democrat to do their bidding:

It is a reality that pleases industry officials who have worked to get close to Mr. Udall over the past 20 months, after the death of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who once led Democrats’ negotiation of a deal with Senate Republicans.

The chemical industry’s tactics and agenda are made quite clear by the Times’ story:

Some of Mr. Udall’s Democratic Senate colleagues and prominent environmentalists say he has helped the industry write new regulations in a way that protects profits more than public health.

Substantively, the Times story raises 3 critical strategic issues that we have exposed here in NJ:

• the chemical industry is on the inside and virtually writing the law

“I’ve been around the Senate for a long time, but I have never before seen so much heavy-handed, big-spending lobbying on any issue, and what is so worrisome is that the very health and life of our children are at stake,” Ms. Boxer said. “To me it looks like the chemical industry itself is writing this bill.”

• The chemical industry want to block States from enacting stricter regulations:

Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who until last year served as chairwoman of the committee that oversees the Environmental Protection Agency, has been the harshest critic of the negotiations between Mr. Udall and Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, notably over the language that would prevent states from setting their own, tougher standards.

• The science of chemical risk screening methodologies of unregulated chemicals is critical:

The most intense disputes are over the pace the E.P.A. will attempt to test the backlog of chemicals whose safety has never been comprehensively assessed. The speed depends in part on how much the chemical industry must pay to cover the cost of tests and rule-making.

So, once again, I will echo a NY Times story with its parallels in NJ environmental policy in hopes that someone in the NJ press corps can connect the dots and look at the key factors here in NJ – unregulated chemicals, chemical risk screening methods, and industry influence in writing the regulations.

I’ve also reached out to Eric Lipton, the NY Times reporter, and pitched this story as a great followup to his national story, particularly in the wake of the Christie Exxon settlement scandal which went national.

So here it is:

PEER recently laid out the story in this Report:

• NEW JERSEY HANDS DRINKING WATER SAFEGUARDS TO DUPONT – Corporate-Dominated Science Board Asks DuPont to Self-Assess Chemical Effects

Trenton —Without public announcement, New Jersey has released a report urging that the assessment of emerging chemical contaminants in drinking water be handled by a system developed by the state’s largest chemical manufacturer. This latest development caps a corporate campaign to kill a multi-year effort to address rising levels of unregulated chemicals in New Jersey drinking water supplies, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Here, in more specific detail, is the how Dupont is on the inside and virtually writing the scientific basis for regulating chemicals in NJ and engaging in gross scientific conflicts of interest:

DEP Commissioner Martin asked his hand picked Science Advisory Board (SAB) to provide scientific recommendations on whether and how to regulate currently unregulated chemicals.

Here’s how the SAB framed Commissioner Martin’s request, technically known as a “charge topic”, in their Final Report;

Issue

Numerous chemicals, some of which may be a potential risk to human or environmental health, are used every day in New Jersey (NJ) for industrial, commercial and household purposes. Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC) are those that present a concern for both hazard and exposure. A number of these chemicals may find their way into the State’s wastewater treatment facilities, receiving waters, aquifers and drinking water treatment facilities and other chemicals may be released to air or deposited in soils. CEC have raised concern around the world, as once released, these products pose a potential threat to biota and the environment. To address this issue specifically in New Jersey, the NJDEP Science Advisory Board (SAB) formed the CEC work group which was asked to investigate this issue.

To address those risks of unregulated chemicals, here is a key recommendation from the DEP SAB Final Report on Contaminants of Emerging Concern:

It is recommended that the hazard assessment be conducted using a platform called METIS (Metanomics Information System) developed by DuPont. METIS is a chemical informatics platform that provides a screening level view of potential environmental fate and effects, human health concerns, and societal perception concerns.

Did you catch that?

The DEP SAB recommended a chemical hazard assessment method developed by Dupont, a chemical manufacturer that would be subject to the regulations of those chemicals.

So, now lets walk, step by step, and show how that is a violation of Christie DEP’s own SAB ethics standards:

1. Here are the bio’s/CV’s of two members of the DEP Science Advisory Board who have the conflicts. Both these members were formally appointed by DEP Commissioner Martin (although they were nominated as potential conducted by Corzine DEP):

John Dyksen, United Water (financial contributor to Christie’s London travel soiree)

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/sab/dyksen-cv.pdf 

John Gannon, Dupont (manufacturer of multiple chemicals and owner of several plants regulated by NJ DEP)

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/sab/gannon-cv.pdf

2. Here are the DEP SAB “Ethics requirements” and conflict of interest and recusal standards, with very specific examples that apply to both Dyksen and Gannon:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/sab/ethics-6-2010.pdf

3. Here is the Rutgers transmittal letter to DEP Commissioner Martin which highlights the role of Gannon and Dyksen in writing a scientific Report to DEP:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/sab/CECFramework%20Final%20Report.pdf

4. Here is the SAB Report transmitted by Rutgers:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/sab/CECFramework%20Final%20Report.pdf

5. Note this recommendation from that Report, which specifically recommends a chemical hazard assessment protocol developed by Dupont:

DEP SAB Final Report on Contaminants of Emerging Concern: